Thursday, 26 January 2012
  0 Replies
  6.7K Visits
Here is a summary of interventions made by country delegations during the GVAP discussion at the WHO Executive Board on 21 January. - A number of delegations mentioned the importance of including measles elimination as part of the GVAP (there was some discussion as to whether it should be eradication). - EU delegation: welcomes the GVAP, expects that governments will be given guidance and country-level road maps on how to operationalize it. Calls for WHO to play a lead role in drafting and implementing the GVAP. Welcomes the establishment of a Vaccine Access Forum. Encourages a GVAP that is operational, not conceptual. Highlights the importance of an accountability framework for the GVAP. - China: suggests a strong role for health education and promotion in the GVAP. Introduces the importance of "risk communications" to address misperceptions around immunisation. Says that it is important to prioritize immunisation *within* a primary healthcare approach. Calls for a disease surveillance component to the GVAP. Asks how DoV will communicate with all stakeholders. Mentions importance of technology transfer and calls for GVAP to support countries to develop their Health Information Systems. - USA: Encourages member states to support the GVAP, mentions the need to stimulate demand for immunisation in high-income countries as well. Defines immunisation as a development challenge, not just a health challenge. Says that GVAP insufficiently addresses the *use* of vaccines (focus is on access, to detriment of use)-- recommends plugging in "access and use" wherever "access" is mentioned in the plan. Says that it is unclear who will take the GVAP forward-- requests clarification. Requests clarification on the vaccine access forum-- what is it? Mentions lagging coverage of measles vaccine-- US does not accept measles eradication language, instead prefers elimination. - Japan: supportive of GVAP, but says it is vital that it coordinates with existing immunisation strategies and programmes to avoid confusion, especially at the field level. - Ecuador: speaking on behalf of UNASUR (Union of South American countries): supports measles elimination-- not eradication. - India: highlights the need to focus on increasing community awareness within the GVAP. - Timor Leste: GVAP should give priority to developing countries, resource constraints should be taken into consideration. - France: requests information on the relationship between GAVI and the GVAP. - Sierra Leone: speaking in behalf of West African states: request that the GVAP prioritizes research into new vaccines, enhancing regional advocacy. Strongly supports GVAP, calls for states to increase domestic funding for immunisation. Medecins de mundo also made an NGO statement calling for: -WHO to play a leading role in GVAP roll out - Asking how conflicts of interest will be managed - Stating that immunisation should not take the place of wider primary health care. - Senegal following NGO/CSO statements: proposed that where the GVAP refers to "states", this term be changed to reflect the inclusivity of a wide variety of country-level actors.
There are no replies made for this post yet.